| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"uri" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2008 07:57:07 AM |
| Object: |
Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
Does the universe have a boundary or a barrier? Is it possible that
light is circumnavigating the universe and what we take to be very
distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies,
formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe?
.
|
|
| User: "dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 08:33:28 AM |
|
|
Dear uri:
On Feb 4, 6:57=A0am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
Does the universe have a boundary or a barrier?
No. The only "boundaries" to where we are at any instant, is the
instant before, and the instant to follow.
Is it possible that light is circumnavigating the
universe and what we take to be very distant
galaxies may actually be duplicate images of
nearby galaxies, formed by light that has
circumnavigated the universe?
You can search sci.astro, about 7 months ago there was the result
announced that there is no galactic pattern to the "left" that matches
any galactic pattern to the right. So no, what you ask is not likely.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "uri" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 08:47:57 AM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 4:33 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Is it possible that light is circumnavigating the
universe and what we take to be very distant
galaxies may actually be duplicate images of
nearby galaxies, formed by light that has
circumnavigated the universe?
You can search sci.astro, about 7 months ago there was the result
announced that there is no galactic pattern to the "left" that matches
any galactic pattern to the right. So no, what you ask is not likely.
David A. Smith
Dear David A. Smith, what do you mean by galactic pattern to the
"left" and right? Do you have the article with the result?
.
|
|
|
| User: "dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 11:47:24 AM |
|
|
Dear uri:
On Feb 4, 7:47=A0am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:33 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Is it possible that light is circumnavigating the
universe and what we take to be very distant
galaxies may actually be duplicate images of
nearby galaxies, formed by light that has
circumnavigated the universe?
You can search sci.astro, about 7 months ago there was
the result announced that there is no galactic pattern to
the "left" that matches any galactic pattern to the right.
=A0So no, what you ask is not likely.
Dear David A. Smith, what do you mean by galactic pattern
to the "left" and right?
I mean that you look in any particular place in the sky and record the
pattern of stars / galaxies at different ages / distances (the
"left"). Then you turn and look in the opposite direction, or near
the opposite direction (the "right") and you find mo match, mirrored,
inverted, or otherwise, to those stars / galaxies.
Do you have the article with the result?
Sam Wormley provided one. I searched for about an hour, and did not
find the one I recalled.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "uri" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 02:15:26 PM |
|
|
I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary. It is infinite in
scope. If the universe has a boundary, what is this boundary made of?
.
|
|
|
| User: "dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 03:30:15 PM |
|
|
Dear uri:
On Feb 4, 1:15=A0pm, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary.
You are in good company. Current physics believe that there is no
boundary, just as the surface of a balloon has no boundary... on the
surface of the balloon.
It is infinite in scope.
This has issues. It is true that you can send away from any point at
c, and never have that light come back to the same point. But there
is no evidence that the Universe is infinite. On the contrary, the
past displays a progressively hotter, denser youth, equally young and
hot in every direction... something an infinite Universe can only
handle if we are in a "special place".
If the universe has a boundary, what is this boundary
made of?
Time. We can get to neither the past nor the future, save by passing
each instant in between. We are constrained to the surface of the
"balloon".
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Agent Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 05:06:25 PM |
|
|
dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in news:10053289-afc9-442b-948e-
a5910b3c7dbd@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Dear uri:
On Feb 4, 1:15 pm, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary.
You are in good company. Current physics believe that there is no
boundary, just as the surface of a balloon has no boundary... on the
surface of the balloon.
It is infinite in scope.
This has issues. It is true that you can send away from any point at
c, and never have that light come back to the same point. But there
is no evidence that the Universe is infinite. On the contrary, the
past displays a progressively hotter, denser youth, equally young and
hot in every direction... something an infinite Universe can only
handle if we are in a "special place".
Not at all. Our universe might be a bubble that inflated at a decidedly
unspecial location into a universe that already existed, pushing pre-
existing space out of the way.
If the universe has a boundary, what is this boundary
made of?
Time. We can get to neither the past nor the future, save by passing
each instant in between. We are constrained to the surface of the
"balloon".
Supposedly it's a boundary that wraps around to the other "side" of the
universe, with a reflection operation that may or may not exist. It
seems a wonderful opportunity to rewrite the old, 50's, sci-fi movie,
"Journey to the Far Side of the Sun," where a test pilot travels to a
mirror Earth, and everybody thinks that he aborted the mission and came
back, until he notices that everything is reversed. Only the ending
needs to be discarded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Cartwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 06:02:52 PM |
|
|
Agent Smith wrote:
Supposedly it's a boundary that wraps around to the other "side" of the
universe, with a reflection operation that may or may not exist. It
seems a wonderful opportunity to rewrite the old, 50's, sci-fi movie,
"Journey to the Far Side of the Sun," where a test pilot travels to a
mirror Earth, and everybody thinks that he aborted the mission and came
back, until he notices that everything is reversed. Only the ending
needs to be discarded.
That, and the mirror earth. Depart Earth, circumnavigate the universe,
and return to the your point of origin, and unless the universe is a lot
smaller than the likely minimum size, you'll find an unrecognizable
stellar neighborhood. Mostly red dwarves, not much gas or dust, nothing
resembling the Sun. Search around enough and maybe you'll find a cold
dead ball of rock 7000km in radius, about 15-20 billion years old, with
its frozen seas and continents in an unfamiliar configuration, adrift in
interstellar space. That's if it wasn't evaporated from the galaxy by
close encounters and the civilization you left didn't get around to
blowing it up or cannibalizing it to build a Dyson sphere sometime after
your departure.
Actually, there probably wouldn't be any frozen seas. The water would
have boiled off during the red giant phase of the sun's life. Then
again, cometary impacts could have delivered more.
If the universe is small enough, and you go at nearly light speed, you
might find the planet still orbiting a white dwarf, not yet stripped off
it by some random encounter. Earlier still and heck, the planetary
nebula might still be there. You're sure to miss the red giant stage
though, unless the universe is less than about five billion light years
in circumference along the path you took and you went at just a hair
below lightspeed the whole way around.
Given the gas and dust that, at those speeds, would hit with extreme
force, such that a pebble would hit you like a megaton nuke, you would
probably have to set up a receiver in Earth orbit, travel to e.g.
Betelgeuse at a lower speed, build a transmitter that magnetically
hovers over one pole of the star, have yourself digitized and downloaded
into the transmitter, and then wait for the star to go kablooey in a few
million years or less. There should be powerful gamma ray jets out the
poles during the supernova according to some models. The transmitter
will be vaporized, but if built right it can impose a modulation on
those gamma rays as it goes. Then you zip around at exactly light speed
and arrive as red-shifted but detectable radio waves at the receiver
many billions of years later, if the universe curves in on itself in the
direction the gamma ray jet went. Footprint should be galaxy-wide so
wherever Earth ended up, if it didn't get launched out of the galaxy by
something's gravity, it should be in the reception footprint. The
receiver observes a high-Z supernova in deep space, decodes a
modulation, and reconstitutes you in orbit of your cold, dead homeworld.
A rather pointless stunt for which only posthuman professionals need
apply. Constructing a receiver that will survive for billions of years
in Earth orbit, including a few billion years of every-90-minute
200-degree temperature swings back and forth about room temperature, a
few million years of roasting during the sun's red giant phase, and then
a few billion of freezing, all without deorbiting even once, and still
work after all of that is left as an exercise for the reader.
Risks include:
* Not getting to Betelgeuse in time. It might go bang in 300,000 years
or in just 300. If it goes bang in 300, you'll still be only halfway
there or so. If it goes bang tomorrow and those polar jets are aimed
just wrong, your civilization might go up in smoke before you even get
to leave Earth.
* The transmitter might fail, especially if your detailed supercomputer
models of the evolution of the Betelgeuse supernova prove to be wrong.
* The universe might be too big, or cosmic acceleration too strong, and
space around your path proves to expand faster than light can cross it.
* Something might absorb the signal, such as a large dust cloud, once
it's redshifted enough.
* You might miss the Milky Way coming around the loop due to the
accumulated deflections of your path due to galaxies and dark matter
along the way. Being just a signal, you can't steer to correct your course.
* Someone might intercept you. You might wake up to find yourself a
"guest" of the Klingon Empire or something. Or being run in thousands of
death cubes by who knows what.
* The Earth might have been evaporated from the Milky Way.
* They *think* the swelling red giant Sun will shed enough mass for the
Earth to spiral outward and stay out of reach, but they may have
miscalculated and the Sun swells enough to swallow the Earth after all.
* The receiver might fail, or get cannibalized by some later Earth
civilization. Even if it becomes a holy shrine for humans and none will
ever dare touch it, a later civilization might not have the same
reverence; they eventually opened and took stuff from King Tut's tomb,
after all. And of course there's no guarantee that a later civilization
will actually be human at all. It might be AIs, or extraterrestrial
colonists, or some intelligent descendant of the parakeet, or of the
Salmonella bacterium that gave you the runs after those bad tacos that
time for that matter -- five billion years is provably long enough for a
bacterium's descendants to evolve into intelligent tool-users with the
ability to reach Earth orbit, because it's already happened once.
Biggest risks -- receiver simply fails to last much longer than the
Pyramids, or it gets fried by EMP during WWIII after Emperor George Bush
IV and Sultan Bin Laden Junior get into a pissing match over a few
spaceships intentionally crashed into Moonbase domes or something
equally silly and pointless.
* Planet's been disassembled long ago for some purpose or another.
* Those maniacs! They blew it up!
* After everything else works, the signal might be too weak or garbled
after all. You never wake up, or find you've been reconstructed as a
hybrid of a three-cushion sofa and a mountain hyena with two heads one
of which is permanently wedged up its *****. And your spacesuit therefore
won't fit.
* All hyped up at witnessing the cold cinder that used to be Earth, you
instead wake up to find ... Earth. Intact, with a thriving civilization,
if an incomprehensible one. They stabilized the star, stabilized the
planet, stuck nanotech into everything, and suchlike, or perhaps the
Matrix has you. Perhaps, halfway back to Earth you ran into the
expanding wave of machines converting everything into nanoprocessors to
run posthuman civilization on, and got downloaded into same.
A journey that's definitely not for the faint of heart.
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Agent Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 07:53:42 PM |
|
|
Phil Cartwright <pcartw@nospam.phony.com> wrote in
news:fo893k$viq$1@aioe.org:
Agent Smith wrote:
Supposedly it's a boundary that wraps around to the other "side" of
the universe, with a reflection operation that may or may not exist.
It seems a wonderful opportunity to rewrite the old, 50's, sci-fi
movie, "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun," where a test pilot
travels to a mirror Earth, and everybody thinks that he aborted the
mission and came back, until he notices that everything is reversed.
Only the ending needs to be discarded.
That, and the mirror earth. Depart Earth, circumnavigate the universe,
and return to the your point of origin, and unless the universe is a
lot smaller than the likely minimum size, you'll find an
unrecognizable stellar neighborhood.
Of course, you have to make the trip instantaneous, or else the story
becomes pointless, but that's perfectly allowable, sci-fi canon.
Mostly red dwarves, not much gas
or dust, nothing resembling the Sun. Search around enough and maybe
you'll find a cold dead ball of rock 7000km in radius, about 15-20
billion years old, with its frozen seas and continents in an
unfamiliar configuration, adrift in interstellar space. That's if it
wasn't evaporated from the galaxy by close encounters and the
civilization you left didn't get around to blowing it up or
cannibalizing it to build a Dyson sphere sometime after your
departure.
Actually, there probably wouldn't be any frozen seas. The water would
have boiled off during the red giant phase of the sun's life. Then
again, cometary impacts could have delivered more.
If the universe is small enough, and you go at nearly light speed, you
might find the planet still orbiting a white dwarf, not yet stripped
off it by some random encounter. Earlier still and heck, the planetary
nebula might still be there. You're sure to miss the red giant stage
though, unless the universe is less than about five billion light
years in circumference along the path you took and you went at just a
hair below lightspeed the whole way around.
Given the gas and dust that, at those speeds, would hit with extreme
force, such that a pebble would hit you like a megaton nuke, you would
probably have to set up a receiver in Earth orbit, travel to e.g.
Betelgeuse at a lower speed, build a transmitter that magnetically
hovers over one pole of the star, have yourself digitized and
downloaded into the transmitter, and then wait for the star to go
kablooey in a few million years or less. There should be powerful
gamma ray jets out the poles during the supernova according to some
models. The transmitter will be vaporized, but if built right it can
impose a modulation on those gamma rays as it goes. Then you zip
around at exactly light speed and arrive as red-shifted but detectable
radio waves at the receiver many billions of years later, if the
universe curves in on itself in the direction the gamma ray jet went.
Footprint should be galaxy-wide so wherever Earth ended up, if it
didn't get launched out of the galaxy by something's gravity, it
should be in the reception footprint. The receiver observes a high-Z
supernova in deep space, decodes a modulation, and reconstitutes you
in orbit of your cold, dead homeworld. A rather pointless stunt for
which only posthuman professionals need apply. Constructing a receiver
that will survive for billions of years in Earth orbit, including a
few billion years of every-90-minute 200-degree temperature swings
back and forth about room temperature, a few million years of roasting
during the sun's red giant phase, and then a few billion of freezing,
all without deorbiting even once, and still work after all of that is
left as an exercise for the reader.
Risks include:
* Not getting to Betelgeuse in time. It might go bang in 300,000 years
or in just 300. If it goes bang in 300, you'll still be only halfway
there or so. If it goes bang tomorrow and those polar jets are aimed
just wrong, your civilization might go up in smoke before you even get
to leave Earth.
* The transmitter might fail, especially if your detailed
supercomputer models of the evolution of the Betelgeuse supernova
prove to be wrong. * The universe might be too big, or cosmic
acceleration too strong, and space around your path proves to expand
faster than light can cross it. * Something might absorb the signal,
such as a large dust cloud, once it's redshifted enough.
* You might miss the Milky Way coming around the loop due to the
accumulated deflections of your path due to galaxies and dark matter
along the way. Being just a signal, you can't steer to correct your
course. * Someone might intercept you. You might wake up to find
yourself a "guest" of the Klingon Empire or something. Or being run in
thousands of death cubes by who knows what.
* The Earth might have been evaporated from the Milky Way.
* They *think* the swelling red giant Sun will shed enough mass for
the Earth to spiral outward and stay out of reach, but they may have
miscalculated and the Sun swells enough to swallow the Earth after
all. * The receiver might fail, or get cannibalized by some later
Earth civilization. Even if it becomes a holy shrine for humans and
none will ever dare touch it, a later civilization might not have the
same reverence; they eventually opened and took stuff from King Tut's
tomb, after all. And of course there's no guarantee that a later
civilization will actually be human at all. It might be AIs, or
extraterrestrial colonists, or some intelligent descendant of the
parakeet, or of the Salmonella bacterium that gave you the runs after
those bad tacos that time for that matter -- five billion years is
provably long enough for a bacterium's descendants to evolve into
intelligent tool-users with the ability to reach Earth orbit, because
it's already happened once. Biggest risks -- receiver simply fails to
last much longer than the Pyramids, or it gets fried by EMP during
WWIII after Emperor George Bush IV and Sultan Bin Laden Junior get
into a pissing match over a few spaceships intentionally crashed into
Moonbase domes or something equally silly and pointless.
* Planet's been disassembled long ago for some purpose or another.
* Those maniacs! They blew it up!
* After everything else works, the signal might be too weak or garbled
after all. You never wake up, or find you've been reconstructed as a
hybrid of a three-cushion sofa and a mountain hyena with two heads one
of which is permanently wedged up its *****. And your spacesuit
therefore won't fit.
* All hyped up at witnessing the cold cinder that used to be Earth,
you instead wake up to find ... Earth. Intact, with a thriving
civilization, if an incomprehensible one. They stabilized the star,
stabilized the planet, stuck nanotech into everything, and suchlike,
or perhaps the Matrix has you. Perhaps, halfway back to Earth you ran
into the expanding wave of machines converting everything into
nanoprocessors to run posthuman civilization on, and got downloaded
into same.
A journey that's definitely not for the faint of heart.
And a sci-fi story that's even worse, which means that I think I'll
stick with my original script. Oh and, by the way, the producers asked
me to tell you that you're off the project. Hand in your badge and key
at the security desk, and on the way out, remember not to let the door
hit you in the back of the head.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
05 Feb 2008 08:51:20 AM |
|
|
Dear Agent Smith:
On Feb 4, 4:06=A0pm, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com> wrote:
dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote in news:10053289-afc9-442b-948e-
a5910b3c7...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 4, 1:15=A0pm, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary.
You are in good company. =A0Current physics believe that there is no
boundary, just as the surface of a balloon has no boundary... on the
surface of the balloon.
It is infinite in scope.
This has issues. =A0It is true that you can send away from any point at
c, and never have that light come back to the same point. =A0But there
is no evidence that the Universe is infinite. =A0On the contrary, the
past displays a progressively hotter, denser youth, equally young and
hot in every direction... something an infinite Universe can only
handle if we are in a "special place".
Not at all. =A0Our universe might be a bubble that inflated at a decidedly=
unspecial location into a universe that already existed, pushing pre-
existing space out of the way.
What is it about "special place" that you don't understand? "In the
bubble" *is* a special place. "In the bubble" and "no other bubbles
have intruded" is yet another special place. In an infinite Universe,
the probability that we are "in the bubble" is near zero.
Additionally, we are so close to "center of the bubble", that we
cannot see out of it to "spaces" that have different physics than we
have right here. It is normal matter to the limit of our vision.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
05 Feb 2008 11:01:49 AM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 2:51=A0pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Dear Agent Smith:
On Feb 4, 4:06=A0pm, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com> wrote:
dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote in news:10053289-afc9-442b-948e-
a5910b3c7...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 4, 1:15=A0pm, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary.
You are in good company. =A0Current physics believe that there is no
boundary, just as the surface of a balloon has no boundary... on the
surface of the balloon.
It is infinite in scope.
This has issues. =A0It is true that you can send away from any point a=
t
c, and never have that light come back to the same point. =A0But there=
is no evidence that the Universe is infinite. =A0On the contrary, the
past displays a progressively hotter, denser youth, equally young and
hot in every direction... something an infinite Universe can only
handle if we are in a "special place".
Not at all. =A0Our universe might be a bubble that inflated at a decided=
ly
unspecial location into a universe that already existed, pushing pre-
existing space out of the way.
What is it about "special place" that you don't understand? =A0"In the
bubble" *is* a special place. =A0"In the bubble" and "no other bubbles
have intruded" is yet another special place. =A0In an infinite Universe,
the probability that we are "in the bubble" is near zero.
Additionally, we are so close to "center of the bubble", that we
cannot see out of it to "spaces" that have different physics than we
have right here. =A0It is normal matter to the limit of our vision.
David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is quite amazing to see the reasoning from the 15th century which
borrows from the same arguments in order to propose the mobility of
the Earth.This dark era tries to explain directly what is observed and
comes up with a mirror argument arguing for a ridiculous 'balloon'
perspective.-
http://cla.umn.edu/sites/jhopkins/DI-Intro12-2000.pdf
Page 31 onwards is a fair,if not entirely accurate. commentary,a sort
of antecedent to Copernican reasoning where the threads between
theological and geometrical arguments blur.This era is like an
antithesis of that old reasoning,a slide into sub-geocentricity of
sorts with not the slightest sign of ending.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Agent Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
05 Feb 2008 03:32:46 PM |
|
|
dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in
news:2b89ffdb-52b8-4b50-81ff-1e72f5602536@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Dear Agent Smith:
On Feb 4, 4:06 pm, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com> wrote:
dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote in news:10053289-afc9-442b-948e-
a5910b3c7...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 4, 1:15 pm, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary.
You are in good company. Current physics believe that there is no
boundary, just as the surface of a balloon has no boundary... on
the surface of the balloon.
It is infinite in scope.
This has issues. It is true that you can send away from any point
at c, and never have that light come back to the same point. But
there is no evidence that the Universe is infinite. On the
contrary, the past displays a progressively hotter, denser youth,
equally young and hot in every direction... something an infinite
Universe can only handle if we are in a "special place".
Not at all. Our universe might be a bubble that inflated at a
decidedly
unspecial location into a universe that already existed, pushing pre-
existing space out of the way.
What is it about "special place" that you don't understand? "In the
bubble" *is* a special place. "In the bubble" and "no other bubbles
have intruded" is yet another special place. In an infinite Universe,
the probability that we are "in the bubble" is near zero.
Additionally, we are so close to "center of the bubble", that we
cannot see out of it to "spaces" that have different physics than we
have right here. It is normal matter to the limit of our vision.
You clearly think that the lightspeed bubble, the distance it takes
light to travel in the age of the universe, which the range within which
we are capable of making observations, is the same size as the universe.
Well it isn't, and the last number I heard for the size of the universe
was 80 GLY, which is 6x larger than the lightspeed bubble. Anything at
all could be happening out there, but we'll never know it.
There's nothing special about our location in the bubble, because
there's one centered at every point in space. What is about that you
don't understand, Mr. Angry? Your belligerence belies your lack of
confidence, as well as your inability to communicate coherently about
the question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
05 Feb 2008 06:48:56 PM |
|
|
Dear Agent Smith:
"Agent Smith" <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9A3BA852884D6agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.33.102...
dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in
news:2b89ffdb-52b8-4b50-81ff-1e72f5602536@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Dear Agent Smith:
On Feb 4, 4:06 pm, Agent Smith
<agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com> wrote:
dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote in news:10053289-afc9-442b-948e-
a5910b3c7...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 4, 1:15 pm, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary.
You are in good company. Current physics believe that
there is no boundary, just as the surface of a balloon
has no boundary... on the surface of the balloon.
It is infinite in scope.
This has issues. It is true that you can send away from
any point at c, and never have that light come back to
the same point. But there is no evidence that the
Universe is infinite. On the contrary, the past displays
a progressively hotter, denser youth, equally young and
hot in every direction... something an infinite Universe
can only handle if we are in a "special place".
Not at all. Our universe might be a bubble that inflated
at a decidedly unspecial location into a universe that
already existed, pushing pre-existing space out of the way.
What is it about "special place" that you don't understand?
"In the bubble" *is* a special place. "In the bubble" and
"no other bubbles have intruded" is yet another special
place. In an infinite Universe, the probability that we are
"in the bubble" is near zero. Additionally, we are so close
to "center of the bubble", that we cannot see out of it to
"spaces" that have different physics than we have right
here. It is normal matter to the limit of our vision.
You clearly think that the lightspeed bubble, the distance
it takes light to travel in the age of the universe, which the
range within which we are capable of making observations,
is the same size as the universe.
No. You posit and infinite Universe. What is the probability
that we will be "in the bubble" (which you propose to be finite),
and not in the displaced stuff (which is infinite)?
Well it isn't, and the last number I heard for the size of
the universe was 80 GLY, which is 6x larger than the
lightspeed bubble.
This is based on a model that you entirely ignore, when you
propose and infinite Universe that a bubble is popped into. So
you cannot use this geometry. Additionally, what is the
probability that we would not be within 14 GLY of the bubble
boundary? Knowing that we actually see objects that are "~30 GLY
away"...
Anything at all could be happening out there, but we'll
never know it.
It still requires a "special place".
There's nothing special about our location in the bubble,
because there's one centered at every point in space.
Not with your model, certainly with General Relativity and the
Standard Model.
What is about that you don't understand, Mr. Angry?
Your belligerence belies your lack of confidence, as
well as your inability to communicate coherently about
the question.
You are posting a response to someone that honestly did not know.
Your response is based on your personal beliefs, scattered with a
smattering of facts gleaned from other, mutually exclusive,
theories. You are posting to a newsgroup that is archived for
*years*, so your little "temper tantrum" will be a gem that can
be called up and marvelled at at a moments notice. You have no
clue, and I want to be sure the OP knows that this little "side
branch" goes nowhere that Science can get him out of.
By the way, your mind reading skills are not very good either. I
was hoping to get you to think about what you were proposing.
Instead I get an emotional response, complete with "name
calling". If you cannot stand criticism, and you must mislead
newbies that may not (yet) have the critical skills to recognize
you for what you are, and you will not tell them you are making
this stuff up on the spur of the moment, I can just add you to my
killfile. That way, you can just blunder on without comments
from me. And should you think I am picking on you, I went for
the longest time thinking the Titanic was made from titanium...
because someone told me it was.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schutkeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 04:56:54 PM |
|
|
uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in news:5a295591-e8fa-48fc-a9ce-
377231456248@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary. It is infinite in
scope.
Infinite or not, anything outside our sphere of visibility is irrelevant,
because we can never observe it, making it "effectively infinite."
If the universe has a boundary, what is this boundary made of?
No boundary. Some foolish people think that it wraps around itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 05:35:45 PM |
|
|
"John Schutkeker" <jschutkeker@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3AB6979B7B6lkajehoriuasldfjknak@207.115.33.102...
uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in news:5a295591-e8fa-48fc-a9ce-
377231456248@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary. It is infinite in
scope.
Infinite or not, anything outside our sphere of visibility is irrelevant,
because we can never observe it, making it "effectively infinite."
If the universe has a boundary, what is this boundary made of?
No boundary. Some foolish people think that it wraps around itself.
Some people think they have evidence as well...
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/01/our-repeating-pentagonal-universe_7749.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Agent Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 07:46:10 PM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in
news:13qf8a5saa21356@corp.supernews.com:
"John Schutkeker" <jschutkeker@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3AB6979B7B6lkajehoriuasldfjknak@207.115.33.102...
uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in news:5a295591-e8fa-48fc-a9ce-
377231456248@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary. It is infinite in
scope.
Infinite or not, anything outside our sphere of visibility is
irrelevant, because we can never observe it, making it "effectively
infinite."
If the universe has a boundary, what is this boundary made of?
No boundary. Some foolish people think that it wraps around itself.
Some people think they have evidence as well...
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/01/our-repeating-pentagonal-universe_
7
749.html
Their so-called evidence contradicts the accepted scientific
understanding that the universe extends well outside the lightspeed
bubble surrounding us. Light can't traverse the whole universe, because
to do so, it would have to travel for a longer time than the age of the
universe, not to mention that it would be redshifted to zero wavelength,
at such great distances, by the Hubble expansion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 05:46:24 PM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:13qf8a5saa21356@corp.supernews.com...
|
| "John Schutkeker" <jschutkeker@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message
| news:Xns9A3AB6979B7B6lkajehoriuasldfjknak@207.115.33.102...
| > uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in news:5a295591-e8fa-48fc-a9ce-
| > 377231456248@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
| >
| > > I believe the universe doesn't have a boundary. It is infinite in
| > > scope.
| >
| > Infinite or not, anything outside our sphere of visibility is
irrelevant,
| > because we can never observe it, making it "effectively infinite."
| >
| > > If the universe has a boundary, what is this boundary made of?
| >
| > No boundary. Some foolish people think that it wraps around itself.
|
| Some people think they have evidence as well...
|
|
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/01/our-repeating-pentagonal-universe_7749.html
|
Some people are psychotic.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/psychosis
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
05 Feb 2008 04:00:20 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 5:56 pm, John Schutkeker <jschutke...@sbcglobal.net.nospam>
wrote:
If the universe has a boundary, what is this boundary made of?
No boundary. Some foolish people think that it wraps around itself.
No boundary? Lessee. Universe goes on forever and ever amen! Now
THERE is a scientific concept if ever I heard one!
And if that is "foolish" then the question remains what is at the
boundaries? Are there large walls and god-like bolts like the "Truman
Show"? I somehow find THAT one "foolish" too! How about THIS one?
The universe is a large n-dimensional hypersphere! If one travels the
universe one eventually comes back to where you began, just as on
earth. [as above so below] Light, however is the exception traveling
only in straight lines and doesn't hug the surface of the hypersphere
as you do when "traveling". Hence light does not hit you in the *****
when shine a laser away from you!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 10:35:05 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:33 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Is it possible that light is circumnavigating the
universe and what we take to be very distant
galaxies may actually be duplicate images of
nearby galaxies, formed by light that has
circumnavigated the universe?
You can search sci.astro, about 7 months ago there was the result
announced that there is no galactic pattern to the "left" that matches
any galactic pattern to the right. So no, what you ask is not likely.
David A. Smith
Dear David A. Smith, what do you mean by galactic pattern to the
"left" and right? Do you have the article with the result?
left
adj.
1.
a. Of, belonging to, located on, or being the side of the body to the
north when the subject is facing east.
b. Of, relating to, directed toward, or located on the left side.
c. Located on the left side of a person facing downstream: the left bank
of a river.
right
adj.
1. The opposite of left.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 11:36:02 AM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 6:57 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
Does the universe have a boundary or a barrier?
Is it possible that light is circumnavigating the
universe and what we take to be very distant
galaxies may actually be duplicate images of
nearby galaxies, formed by light that has
circumnavigated the universe?
Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html
9 Oct 2003 - Luminet et al., (2003, Nature, 425, 593-595) suggest that
the Universe has a small topology, and what looks like a finite
spherical Universe is really made up of 120 images of a single
dodecahedron. Under this hypothesis, the whole Universe is slightly
smaller than the observable sphere bounded by our surface of last
scattering. But when our line of sight leaves the dodecahedron, it
comes back in on the opposite face. Thus we would not see any sharp
edge between the inside and outside of the dodecahedron, but we could
see some parts of the surface of last scattering more than once from
different directions, just as we can see many images of a barber in a
traditional barber shop with mirrors on both the front and back walls.
As a result, there should be circles on opposite sides of the sky where
the cosmic microwave background anisotropy matches up. In fact, there
should be six pairs of such circles. But Luminet et al. did not look
for these circles in the WMAP anisotropy data before publishing in a
Nature cover story. The negative results of such a circle search are
given by Cornish et al. Thus this theory is discussed under the
headline "Cosmic Soccer Ball? Theory Already Takes Sharp Kicks" in
today's New York Times.
See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 03:21:26 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:62Ipj.15520$yE1.998@attbi_s21...
On Feb 4, 6:57 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
Does the universe have a boundary or a barrier?
Is it possible that light is circumnavigating the
universe and what we take to be very distant
galaxies may actually be duplicate images of
nearby galaxies, formed by light that has
circumnavigated the universe?
Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html
9 Oct 2003 - Luminet et al., (2003, Nature, 425, 593-595) suggest that
the Universe has a small topology, and what looks like a finite
spherical Universe is really made up of 120 images of a single
dodecahedron.
A modified version involving a 36 degree twist appeared in New Scientist
recently...
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/01/our-repeating-pentagonal-universe_7749.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 12:43:59 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 5:36=A0pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:57 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
Does the universe have a boundary or a barrier?
Is it possible that light is circumnavigating the
universe and what we take to be very distant
galaxies may actually be duplicate images of
nearby galaxies, formed by light that has
circumnavigated the universe?
Ref:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html
9 Oct 2003 - Luminet et al., (2003, Nature, 425, 593-595) suggest that
the Universe has a small topology, and what looks like a finite
spherical Universe is really made up of 120 images of a single
dodecahedron. Under this hypothesis, the whole Universe is slightly
smaller than the observable sphere bounded by our surface of last
scattering. But when our line of sight leaves the dodecahedron, it
comes back in on the opposite face. Thus we would not see any sharp
edge between the inside and outside of the dodecahedron, but we could
see some parts of the surface of last scattering more than once from
different directions, just as we can see many images of a barber in a
traditional barber shop with mirrors on both the front and back walls.
As a result, there should be circles on opposite sides of the sky where
the cosmic microwave background anisotropy matches up. In fact, there
should be six pairs of such circles. But Luminet et al. did not look
for these circles in the WMAP anisotropy data before publishing in a
Nature cover story. The negative results of such a circle search are
given by Cornish et al. Thus this theory is discussed under the
headline "Cosmic Soccer Ball? Theory Already Takes Sharp Kicks" in
today's New York Times.
See:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html
About a decade ago I tried to bring a very specific geometry into a
discussion in terms of stellar evolution,the specific geometry was
quasi-periodic and seems to be everywhere where natural processes are
involved,including stellar effeciency.
I would never dream of that kind of approach today judging from the
standard of discussions and responses besides there are few like
Conway around to handle the flood of intersecting threads involved.
http://groups.google.com/group/geometry.puzzles/msg/ee6595be1c814350
Understand the rings of SN1987A in terms of stellar evolution and
effiiciency and it becomes clear where the higher elements come from
and why our planet is exceptional for the ubiquitous geometry that
entranced Plato,Kepler,Da Vinc and so many others -
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/phi2DGeomTrig.html#pe=
nrose
The language of astronomy is geometry and not algebra and many would
do well to return to the magnificence of that discipline instead of
trying to warp it.
btw,I was working with two external rings and one smaller intersecting
ring long before the images of the remnant supernova emerged in
1994.How many people can say that !.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 10:43:43 AM |
|
|
On 4 Feb, 13:57, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
Does the universe have a boundary or a barrier? Is it possible that
light is circumnavigating the universe and what we take to be very
distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies,
formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe?
Anyone who does not crack up laughing at the reason why the universe
was 'curved' in the first place certainly deserves what they get.Let
us see why Albert decided that space needed to be bent in his own
words -
"There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density.
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space.
This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished. "
http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html
Those priceless paragraphs were written in 1920 and a few years before
stellar islands (we call them galaxies) were discovered,the second
paragraph is especially priceless in his rejection of stellar
islands,albeit he knew no differently in 1920.The third paragraph is
simply hilarious,a lament that light leaving stars would go to waste
hence a warped space to enclose his beloved notions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
04 Feb 2008 03:20:13 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 5:57=A0am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
Does the universe have a boundary or a barrier? Is it possible that
light is circumnavigating the universe and what we take to be very
distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies,
formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe?
No boundary. It's Einstein's closed universe. It's 4 D hyperspherical
in form.
The universe is curved in the 4th spatial dimension.
Light is in the distance like a rainbow.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
.
|
|
|
| User: "uri" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
05 Feb 2008 04:39:08 AM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 11:20 pm, wrote:
No boundary. It's Einstein's closed universe. It's 4 D hyperspherical
in form.
The universe is curved in the 4th spatial dimension.
Light is in the distance like a rainbow.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
What do you mean by curved in the 4th spatial dimension? Is there a
measureable 4th spatial dimension?
Saying that there is a 4th spatial dimension is more philosophy than
science because dimensions are by definition what we can measure.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
05 Feb 2008 03:54:20 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 8:57 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
Does the universe have a boundary or a barrier? Is it possible that
light is circumnavigating the universe and what we take to be very
distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies,
formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe?
Valid and interesting question. Note that the question of LIGHT
circumnavigating the universe is a different one from a PERSON (or
ship or other object) doing so. Apparently light does not do this.
This would be because light travels in straight lines. In fact it is
this very fact which gives rise to the "shortcut" light takes across a
chord of the Hypersphere which is the Universe. That angled "shortcut"
is what gives rise to the so-called redshift. On the other hand an
object travels in 3D space which is on the surface of the Hypersphere
and thus an OBJECT can circumnavigate the universe. And if you start
traveling in one direction you eventually come back to where you
started just as on earth!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Bailey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is light circumnavigating the universe? |
05 Feb 2008 08:41:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 05:57:07 -0800 (PST), uri <danny99@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
Does the universe have a boundary or a barrier? Is it possible that
light is circumnavigating the universe and what we take to be very
distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies,
formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe?
Sam Wormley also suggested an article by Luminet. I very much
recommend this article, written by one of the leading topological
cosmologists of today. The material was given in an invited talk
given at "More geometrico" Conference, 3-4 may 2005, Milano University
(Italy), to be published in Proceedings "New Trends in Geometry, and
Its Role in the Natural and Life Sciences"
It is thus more explainatory and less opaque than many of the reprints
that are found on the Los Alamos Labs archive.
Geometry and Topology in Relativistic Cosmology
Jean-Pierre Luminet
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3374
I snipped up his summary of the recent disputes over the possibility
of a reentrant topology (which would lead to distant galaxies being
duplicate images ...) perhaps badly, to make the point of how
unsettled the current debate appears to be.
"Such circles have been searched in WMAP data by several teams, using
various statistical indicators and massive
computer calculations. First, Cornish et al. (2004) ...Next, Roukema
et al. (2004) performed the same analysis for
smaller circles, and found six pairs of matched circles ... Finally,
Aurich et al. (2006a) performed a very careful search
for matched circles ... This shows in passing how delicate the
statistical analysis of observational data is, since different
analyses of the same data can lead to radically opposed conclusions!
The controversy still went up a tone when Key et al. (2006) claimed
that their negative analysis was not
disputable,...Since such an argument of authority, a fair portion of
the academic community believes the WMAP data has ruled out
multiply-connected models. However, at least the
second part of the claim is wrong.
The new release of WMAP data (Spergel et al., 2006), integrating two
additional years of observation with
reduced uncertainty, strengthened the evidence
.....This is not a strong argument against such models, since the..."
When the smoke settles, it may be clear but the options are
entertaining. Several provide for precisely what you suggest, there
can be objects in the sky which are duplicated and are seen both at a
relatively recent time and as they appeared in a much earlier epoch.
The 4D- dodecahedral model suggests that only 80% of the universe we
observe is real and in a sense, the remainder is mirage.
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|